Diálogo de abertura | Políticas cósmicas (Legendas/Subtitles) | Seres-Rios Festival

Where I was born, a river runs. Most of us were born where a river runs. These river beings who roam the ground, crawl under the earth and fly above the clouds are just like us, with their richness, beauty, strength and lightness, spring and river mouth, calmness and whirlpool, muddy and clear water. These are places where animals and plants live, enchanted locations full of fables of every kind. At a time we must agree once again on life promises, talking about rivers is the same as talking about life. Therefore, we created Seres-Rios: Festival Fluvial, to celebrate the

existence and importance of rivers. At this time, after losing so many lives unnecessarily, exhausting the nature as if it were a mere resource to mankind, we will celebrate the life of every being, of every living being, as Guimarães Rosa used to say. A festival that is a gathering of different people. A movement of various confluences where we can celebrate and think about how we all are made of ecological, and, therefore, cultural relationships. From three rivers: Opará, Yékyty and Watú, better known as Rivers São Francisco, Jequitinhonha and Doce, we'll have a week to talk about rivers

in conversations, music, cinema and visual arts. On behalf of BDMG Cultural, I want to thank everyone who helped building this festival. I share with you the tremendous joy of opening this week with a conversation with the indigenous leader and philosopher Ailton Krenak, and the anthropologist Marisol de La Cadena, mediated by Ana Gomes. Next, we will watch a beautiful concert with Mônica Salmaso, André Mehmari and Teco Cardoso. This will be our week: up, down and into the river. Thank you very much and a great festival to everyone. We're very happy to open Seres-Rios Festival, with the

presence of Ailton Krenak and Marisol de La Cadena. This is a festival that was conceived to celebrate, conjure and find the rivers that cross this land that is called Minas Gerais, since the colonization, a land of mines and general woods, the three rivers that have their sources here, Rivers Doce, São Francisco and Jequitinhonha. We'll have conversations, film exhibitions, cartography of local actions, exhibition of commissioned artworks, and all these activities start today with this conversation between Ailton Krenak and Marisol de La Cadena. I'll first introduce Ailton and Marisol, since we don't want to have truncated, but

a natural-paced conversation. So, Ailton is a journalist, writer, activist at the Movimento Socioambiental de Defesa dos Direitos Indígenas, Commander of the Cultural Merit Order of the President of the Republic, and Doctor Honoris Causa at the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. He took part in the National Constituent Assembly, which created the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, being the protagonist of one of the most remarkable scenes in Brazilian history, he participated in the foundation of União dos Povos Indígenas and Aliança dos Povos da Floresta. He idealized the Festival de Dança e Cultura Indígena, which has taken place

since 1998 at Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais. He is the author of books: "Ailton Krenak: Encontros" with the organization of Sérgio Cohn, "A Vida Não É Útil", "O Amanhã Não Está À Venda", "Ideias Para Adiar o Fim do Mundo", the first three published by Companhia das Letras, and the latter was also published in France, Argentina, Canada and Italy. Introducing Marisol de La Cadena, she has a PhD in anthropology by the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She became an anthropologist in Peru, England, France and United States, where she currently teaches in the Department of Anthropology in the

University of California, Davis. Her most recent book, not yet published in Brazil, is "Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds", which translated is: "Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds", made in collaboration with Mariano and Nazario Turpo, of the Quechua people of Cuzco. She co-edited the book "A World of Many Worlds", with Mario Blazer, and currently works with co-forming livescapes in Colombia, the formation of landscapes for life by cattle raising in Colombia. I would propose we start with Ailton, drawing attention to this tireless, almost impossible movement of following how he has presented himself,

talked and interacted with in recent times. He has shed light on many different people, People of different ages and origins. Ailton has this unique capacity of moving us, or moving our thoughts towards the directions we feel that are necessary as the ones that can give us the answers. This is singular lucidity of Ailton. As an opening, I'm going to read an excerpt from his book "Ideias Para Adiar o Fim do Mundo", which was suggested by the curators of this festival, our dear friends Lô, Júlia and Marcelo, let me read then this excerpt from "Ideias Para

Adiar o Fim do Mundo": "There are hundreds of narratives of peoples who are alive, they tell stories, sing and travel, talk and teach us more than what we have learned with this humanity. We are not the only interesting people in the world. We are part of a whole. Maybe this can get rid of the vanity of this humanity we think we're part of, besides reducing the lack of reverence we keep on having with other companions who are part of this cosmic journey we're living." In association with this excerpt, I'd like to propose a statement that

Marisol conveys in her book about the earthly beings in Andean Worls, where she presents her long-standing collaboration with two Quechua shamans Mariano and Nazario Turpo, with whom she worked in Peru. Marisol states quite emphatically: "even after saying, trying to understand, trying to learn, despite of all the efforts, there will always be something very important that exceeds what can be said and understood", which was Mariano and Nazario tried to convey to her. With this direction, an opening into the unknown, I propose the start of our meeting considering these two tensions that cross our paths today. I

kindly request Ailton and Marisol to talk about them, these two tensions, as they find more relevant and suitable. On one hand, the present moment that I evoke here through a specific experience, and the most recent experiences with the mining companies, we have many contemporary crises and problems, but I'll incite you through the reference to mining companies, who cross the paths, both of Ailton, with the Krenak people, and Marisol with the Runakuna people. How to deal with or find ways of facing scenarios of destruction that are so incisive and powerful? Whom should we look for? What

should we look at? Who should we make alliances with? Is it really all about alliances? Who are we in these possible meetings? What is or could be this composition? On the other hand, going back to the subject matter of the festival, we cannot live only here and now, in this present in crisis, and it's there and then that we wish to propose an exploration of the possible directions, a fabulation as to our future, with river and earth beings, whom are known by both Ailton and Marisol. Who are we? We, with the river beings, we with

the earth beings, how is that? Who are "we"? What are "we"? So, I'm very happy to give the floor to Ailton to start today's conversation. Gratitude, dear Ana. It's good to have such a timely opportunity for us to look at this instant and also ask to this instant what we have. I want to greet dear Marisol in this meeting of rivers, meeting of beings who have always inhabited these worlds, in different forms, but, nevertheless, have always inhabited these worlds. They can suggest to us, if we were to postulate on a future, this future is ancestral

because it had been here all along. I like to think that everything we're able of conjuring as a "becoming" are our companions of immemorial journeys, some of which we cannot even remember. Because they're of a sensitive experience where the observation of time becomes a sort of noise in this sensitive observation. I was looking at an image that evoked this poetical character of ancestral time when a group of boys rowing on a canoe that could carry 6 to 8 boys, and the boys were rowing in a very paced manner, all of them handled the oars very

calmly on the water surface, with harmony, and they were training for their childhood among the Yudjá people, in what they call "getting close to what is ancient". I found so beautiful seeing those boys trying to get closer to what is ancient, and one of them, the oldest, who was verbalizing the experience, said: "Our parents say that we're getting close to how things were in ancient times." I found so beautiful that those boys were yearning for something that their predecessors taught them and that they appreciate as the present instant. This is a wonderful poetic, those boys

are not running after a prospective idea of time. It's not something that goes somewhere beyond this very place, but it's something that will happen in this very place. In this ancestral place, the territory, the rivers, the waters. Evoking the rivers Jequitinhonha, evoking these rivers of ours, river Doce, evoking these rivers, river Mucuri, Jequitinhonha, river Doce; this grandfather of ours, Watú, which is here, less than 1 kilometer from my backyard, during silent nights we can hear the voice of water, the voice of the river, its whisper, going down to the rocks, the rapids, as they are

called, where the water runs, and it seems that at night the water runs both fast and loud, creating music, really, the rock and the water, and all of that implies us in such a wonderful way, Marisol, that allows us to conjugate the verb "we", "we-river", "we-mountains", "we-earth". This is when we feel deeply immersed in these beings, who allow us to leave the body and this sameness of this anthropomorphic form, and experience different forms, experience being water, for instance. This wonderful power that water has of directing itself to different paths, these rivers that we are celebrating

have a huge journey to reach the sea, they run to the Atlantic Ocean. This village where I live now is located in the Eastern region of Minas Gerais, it is closer to the sea than to the central region, the Brazilian Highlands. So, I feel very much involved with the sound of water and rivers, including the subterranean rivers. Having the opportunity to be with you, Marisol, in this meeting, in this festival, it reminds of Arquedas, it reminds me Los Rios Profundos. The beauty, that spirit of the waters, that cuts through valleys, mountains, carrying stories and wonders

to where it reaches. So, I want to salute you in this plural landscape, a landscape of a country that perceives itself having a continental dimension, this colonial aspect, and, at the same time, remember that we are on the Pachamama, which has no boundaries. And it doesn't matter if I'm above or below Rio Grande, it doesn't matter if it's <i>el zorro de arriba</i> or <i>el zorro de abajo</i>, we're everywhere because our ancestors are also everywhere. Rivers that are mountains, such a wonderful thing. Being able to exchange about these things with you brings me joy, these thoughts

on the richness that cannot be contained, living in these presents, both in the sense of time, and in the sense of being a "gift". These are gifts that are given since the beginning of time. Thank you very much, Ana, everyone, thank you for inviting me to talk with Ailton. It may sound rhetorical, but I'll say because it's true, it's not rhetoric: it's a huge honor to be with Ailton. I thank everyone who's made this possible. I've known Ailton for a very long time, but not in person, for what he's done, he's a profound inspiration, but

not the only one. He's an inspiration that's around, among many, as said in the epigraph read by Ana: "We are part of a whole, we are many, we're together, we're not alone." Ailton has been part of many things, and he's done together with others that can think differently. I was trained in the academia. I look indigenous, but I'm not; these are the common taxonomies in Peru. I'm not indigenous in cultural terms, either. However, I have found myself in company with people who have made think in a hybrid manner, in a way that I can take

stuff from the academia, remake them inspired by Ailton, for example, but also, and in a deep way, with the help of my mentors, in this other way of thinking that, circumstantially, both worlds need now. I'm talking about Mariano and Nazario Turpo, who taught me to think in different times at once. Mariano taught me a sentence that I constantly use, this sentence is: "When I looked at something that for me, was a mountain, and had a name, it was called Ausangate, and as such, was also a person, an earth being, I said to Mariano: "Mountain?" And

Mariano said: "Not only a mountain." "Not only a mountain." So I said: "An earth being?" And he said: "Not only an earth being." "Not only an earth being." Mariano and Nazario lived between worlds, and this is the book title: "Ecologies and Practices In Andean Worlds". Mariano and Nazario moved through worlds, lived different worlds, created worlds and thought through worlds. In these worlds, the thoughts are the same and different. For instance, Ana's question and the way that Ailton answered it, one of Ana's questions was about the future. We think more about time than place, we, people

from the academia, Ana and I, we think more about time than place, but what Ailton did was: he started with time and converted it into place. Converted it into river, into the present, the present time of the place. The present of the place, which is also the past. The past and present collapse together, as well as space and time collapse together. When space and time collapse, the importance of the place is recovered. The importance of the place is recovered, places that are together, connected, ecologically connected. I'd like to praise Ailton for the last time here,

in this conversation. It doesn't mean that this is the last praise I have to you, but it could seem... far too many praises. However, the praise... maybe these are not praises but a description, I see you as an ecological activist but not merely for ecology, but one who is ecologically activated. One who's is activated by connection, by movement, one who's activated, as Ana said, making us think in the necessary way and moment. One who's activated by creating possibilities to thoughts. Creating possibilities to thought when the thoughts we have are already without possibilities. So, you come

from a different place, ecologically speaking, reach our thoughts and open possibilities to our thoughts that had no possibilities up until then. Another thing you've done, which seems very interesting to me, is turning ourselves into a verb. "We-river". We are a river, but you don't say "We are", you say "We-river". With that, you "de-separate", you don't mean to "unite", but a "de-separation", turning us into a river, a mountain. This is another way of thinking. I believe that... by turning ourselves back to being rivers, being mountains, by turning ourselves back to earth, to water, we occupy and

render impossible the separation that the capital needs to extract, to destroy. We occupy and render impossible the separation needed by property subject-object that later relates it in that manner to judge it. One of the things that inspires me and I can obtain when I listen to Ailton and other activists like him is the change to our usual grammar. We change this usual grammar by turning, for example, a pronoun "We", into a verb. We change this usual grammar by turning time into place. With this change in grammar, we are making worlds differently. "<i>Remundear</i>" is to make

worlds in a way that is no longer the way of the world we inherited. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't inherit the world as it is, because we've already inherited it, but we can do it differently. We can do self-differently. It's the same and it's different. But it's also the same, but it's different. What I'm saying also changes the usual grammar, it "<i>remundea</i>". We live in the same world which is different already, it remains the same, and it's different. This is... because one of the things that Ailton said, and I compare to what Ana said

in her introduction is that there is no completeness, nothing is absolutely whole. So, the world we inherited is different, and is the one we inherited incompletely, it is both, and that opens up the possibility of "<i>mundear</i>" in different ways. I believe that it occurred, in the conversation, to Ailton or Ana, because it seems interesting to me talking about alliances, and how these alliances are made, which can go through, instead of possibilities, they can cross differences, and leave open the possibility of keeping the differences, with the help of alliances. I'm not sure, Ana, if the word

is "alliance", I called it alliances because it is a way of gathering different things without having to convert anything into something it is not. It's an alliance that demands a lot, if you're not going to convert yourself into something you're not but you want to be with those who are not you, this is a very demanding alliance. This is an alliance that demands thinking about politics in different way, and even stopping to think about the word and concept of "politics" until we don't convert ourselves into something else, by doing it... I don't know, this is

something I leave open to be discussed and to be readdressed as you wish. In the extent that I had an experience that I could call... trying to understand the meaning of alliances as making politics with people who are the same, let's call it "the politics of equals". Let's imagine that this \politics of equals searched for a confirmation, almost, that everything is equal. Therefore, we could have alliances. It was in this sense that I experienced what was a category of a political alliance. It lasted maybe around 20, 30 years, it had a large cost, demanded dedication

and engagement, up to the point when I questioned this movement, this gesture, and I considered, for the first time extending the meaning of affects, and experiencing affective alliances. In this sense, we can consider them as affects between non-equal worlds. It introduces a radical inequality. It does not claim for equality. Firstly, it recognizes an intrinsic otherness in each being, in each person, where we are obliged to take a pause. Before entering, we must take our sandals off. You cannot enter wearing them. This affective alliance has replaced, in the practical experience, a political work that had been

done by the indigenous peoples' movement, together with other forest communities, it even involved Chico Mendes, we created together something called the Forest Peoples' Alliance, which has an eminently political mark. That was a struggle of oppressed peoples to suppress the bosses. A very interesting reading done by an anthropologist friend 10 or 20 years after said that what drove that meeting between several different peoples in the forest was the understanding that they all had a boss. He was the man that claimed property over large portions of forest, the rubber plantations, where indigenous and non-indigenous persons were submitted

to working as slaves on the borders between Brazil, Bolivia and Peru, and our relatives, the Kaxinawá, the Yawanawá, including the Ashaninka people, a constellation of peoples who lived under oppression, in this bad situation caused by the capital, this henchman was representing the real boss, who could be in London, who could be in São Paulo or anywhere in the world, symbolically exploiting a work relationship with these indigenous peoples and rubber tappers who lived in the Amazon forest, as someone using a remote control terrorizing people's minds. When we insurrected inside the forest, and eliminated this henchman who

represented the boss, indigenous persons and rubber tappers could then have an alliance. The Forest Peoples' Alliance was born from this search for equality. From this political experience, I could experience a very critical observation that was: where were we going to get with that? To what extent would we take that? Should we become a labor union, a party? I escaped this route of labor union and political party and experienced what are the so-called affective alliances. I believe that what evolves from these things are the affective alliances. The affects that involve me and a constellation of persons

where I can disappear into, where I no longer need to be a political entity, I can merely be a person who is able to experience this interaction to the extent that it can generate affects. When it starts to charge its tributes, it has already lost its meaning. It was really good to have the time to observe alliances and invite an observation between alliance that demand equality, which can even be oppressive, and the alliances that evoke a radical diversity and can even allow other worlds. This is the only way we can conjugate something as "<i>mundizar</i>" ("worldify"),

right? Opening the possibility of creating worlds, experiencing the meeting with the mountain not as an abstraction, but as a dynamic of affects, where the mountain isn't only a person, it's a subject and it has the initiative of approaching whoever it might be. This "we" that is possible can be approached from different places and ways. It disconcerts the centrality of human speciesism. I believe that this is an interesting point to be observed: how to disconcert this comfortable place of human speciesism? Because, when instituted, it denounces all other existences, because other things can only exist with the

enunciation of human speciesism, Because, when instituted, it denounces all other existences, because other things can only exist with the enunciation of human speciesism, this anthropocentrism, this central place that marks, names and denominates everything. Including the others who are similar to us. Those who we consider as human as well. I'm completely fascinated by the coincidence, I call it alliances of zeal, where the uncommon is a permanent topic. It is a permanent topic that doesn't disappear. It must be completely present when alliances are made. Alliances are made thinking about the common interest, which is not the same

interest. It is a common interest that is not the same interest. This sentence isn't mine, it's by a Belgian philosopher who is very useful to me, she's called Isabelle Stengers, but, I learned to use this sentence with Mariano and Nazario, the Turpos. I was with them, with Nazario, because Mariano had already passed away, I was with Nazario in a manifestation at Plaza de Armas in Cuzco, to defend the Ausangate mountain from a possible mining intervention, which would prospect gold at the entire mountain range of Ausangate. At the Plaza de Armas of Cuzco there were environmentalists,

and there were Runakuna, the Quechua people. I was with Nazario and that was one year and a half since I'd met him, and it took me a long time to learn to think differently. So, I was at the Plaza de Armas of Cuzco, with Nazario, and I was there as an environmentalist. I thought that the Runakuna where there as environmentalists, but, then Mariano's sentence: "Not only", the Runakuna were at the Plaza de Armas of Cuzco to defend Ausangate as an earth being. The environmentalists where there to defend Ausangate and the rivers that are Ausangate, we

can touch on that later, as part of the environment. So, at the square, there were people gathered with the same interest: the Ausangate, which was not the same interest. It was Ausangate, the earth being, Ausangate, the environment, but it also was the very same interest. It was a interest that crossed a non-community, a non-commonality, which was Ausangate. I thought then that one of the things to be done is to un-communize, to turn nature into something that is not common, because the nature is not only nature. So, when Ailton said "alliances through affects", this is exactly

what we had at Cuzco on that day. It was full of affect towards the same thing, which it wasn't the very same thing. Alliances through affects that united and didn't undo the differences. The difference that couldn't be undone, the difference that was part of making different worlds, that could congregate around a common interest, which was not the same interest, this fueled the possibility of fighting against the mining corporation that wanted to translated the Ausangate region into gold, copper, etc. Obviously, this wasn't the only time. Mariano went through a period that was similar to what Ailton

mentioned, Mariano, from 1950 to 1970, made alliances with left-wing parties in Cuzco, to fight against powerful farmers. But, what was defended in this fight against farmers was again the common interest, the land, which was not the same interest. Because, for the left-wing politicians, and I would certainly be among them, if I only had the age then, fighting against farmers, the land was where farmers ended up. It was an economic entity. For the Runakuna, the land was part of Ausangate, it was part of Ayo, it was part of us who were also them. The relations of

being with the earth. Therefore, these alliances, from which we can "<i>mundizar</i>", "<i>remundear</i>", without converting ourselves into equals, maintaining these radical differences, which, after all, do not prevent the possibility of having the square full of people, of converging in affects affects that enable facing the destruction, these are... different alliances, alliances which are not the usual political alliances, which suppose equality, suppose that if we're all part of the union we're equals, there are no differences, we all go to the same places... no! We're all ecology and we're all in ecological relationships. We're all together in ecological relationships.

Therefore, we can have alliances. However, alliances in ecological alliances, which would mean: Therefore, we can have alliances. However, alliances in ecological alliances, which would mean: keep on being who we are and being different too, by means of the alliances, because we can keep on being who we are, but when we form alliances we can combine ourselves and become different, without having to stop being ourselves. This is why I got very excited about the idea that I hadn't thought about: the idea of affects articulating the alliances. Articulating the alliances so that, and I hadn't thought about

this either, the alliances that are with river beings, earth beings, with the earth, with trees, woods, plants, animals, they definitely deanthropomorphize the politics and do, in practice, something else, maybe we can keep on using the word or not, along with the change in grammar, we must invent vocabulary, and we must invent vocabulary that can connect with previous vocabulary. Furthermore, it also has to be different vocabulary, I was fascinated with what you said, Ailton. The word "politics" comes from "polis", and when beings that are not <i>polis</i> think, they might think of other worlds beyond politics. The

language is very determinant of other processes, other interactions. When everything emerges from a place that is the <i>polis</i>, it will always bear a mark that is profoundly affected by this sense of this gathering of equals inside a <i>polis</i>, inside a city, inside a place where the experience of politics is convergent. I'm interested in movements that are confluent. Taking the La Plaza de Armas, I can't imagine something that will converge to La Plaza de Armas, I imagine powers that can be confluent there, at that place, passing through there, but that won't remain there. This has excited

in me an observation of these worlds. The world that is called "nature", and the world that is called "culture". World of culture, world of nature. The <i>polis</i> has always claimed to be the world of culture. The city, the world of culture, and what was demarcated as nature is a savage world, it is a chaotic world. I'm interested in this chaos. I'm not interested in this convergence that ends up at the <i>polis</i>. You said in the first intervention: "leaving the anthropomorphic body to experience oneself as water". Leaving the anthropomorphic body to experience oneself, in the case

of Mariano and Nazario, as Ausangate. To experience oneself as an earth being. Leaving the anthropomorphic body, this anthropomorphic body is an colonial invention. It is a colonial invention that is very heavy and to perpetuate itself it needs an ideal of culture. There's a blasphemy that I'm about to say for the first time publicly. I feel somewhat afraid to say it. I'll be very careful in saying it. I say that... when the colonial missionaries arrived to America, to what was later called America, they had to invent humans. Because the persons that they found here they had,

according to missionaries, bodies that they saw as human bodies, But the practice of this bodies, was not the practice that the missionaries demanded from human bodies. The practice of people found by the missionaries was not a practice of anthropomorphic bodies. It was a practice that allowed them to be water, to be earth, and that was not, the human practice needed by missionaries to extend the creation of the Christian God. Therefore, they created the anthropomorphic bodies that the Christian God needed, and they created the nature. An anthropomorphic nature, as well. This would be the nature with

which the <i>anthropos,</i> could relate itself, which was created by the Christian God, and later the science was able to master. So, this is a double blasphemy. This is a decolonizing blasphemy. However, this is a blasphemy that emerges from the Christian colonization and it means saying to the Christian missionaries that are still with us today, the Spanish Colonization created the practice of humanity that it needed, and it is a practice of anthropomorphic bodies. Right there a huge vocabulary comes into being, the vocabulary of religion, the vocabulary of claiming sacred places, which is also a sacred place,

after 500 years of living alongside religion the mountain can be a sacred mountain, but not only that, it's also an earth being. Obviously, it's also geology. Therefore, after 500 years, there's a lot of mixture. There's a lot of confluence that does not converge, that does not convert itself into one, I really like the word "confluence", Ailton, because there things cross each other, they don't capture each other, they remain whole, and they must not deny each other. This is also part of thinking of an alliance that doesn't arise from a city, doesn't arise from the need

of being equal, as it was previously argued. Equality as symmetry, the possibility of confluence without colliding, this is a different kind of equality. Therefore, the idea of leaving the anthropomorphic body, without ceasing to be humans, obviously, however, leaving the anthropomorphism, which needs the culture, on one hand, and puts the human created by colonization in the center of things, making it impossible to the Runakuna to be earth. When the Spanish arrived, they said that they were turned into stone. In reality, they didn't turn into stone, stone was not a concept, therefore, they didn't turn into stone,

it was with what the Spanish called stone, it was with what the Spanish called mountain, besides that, the Spanish said that these were diabolical practices that had to be eradicated. Therefore, yes... work by undermining the omnipotent capacity of knowing from the natural human quality is part of "<i>mundear</i>" in a different way, undermining, displacing, but not canceling, simply making things provincial, saying: "Okay, this is your province, but there many other provinces that you'll have to talk with. The world doesn't belong to you only, centuries ago it used to be only yours, now, the world is no

longer yours alone." "<i>Remundear</i>" is a task... that is immediate, in this place, and it's very hard. It's clear that it's possible. The idea that it's impossible is also part of the anthropomorphism, of the colonial mindset, of the knowledge and... that are rigidly modern and epistemic. It's clear that it's possible. There are words to say it: "not only". Ausangate is a mountain and not only a mountain. Ausangate is an earth being and not only that. "No, that's not possible, if it's a mountain it can't be something else!" Yes, it's possible. The creation of the impossibility is

an imposition from colonial times, which made this other worlds impossible. But they are possible, they remained being possible! So, Ailton and Marisol, what you were saying touched on two very curious subjects, and we thought about them at the same time. The idea that when Europeans arrived at the Americas they asked themselves if the people they found here were beings with a soul, supposedly to evaluate the possibility of humanity in these beings. On one hand, the question whether these beings have a soul or don't. On the other hand, there is a very well-known scene, a researcher

with his colleagues on the field, he asked what the natives had learned with the arrival of Europeans. He was surprised because he thought that the natives would say they found out that they had a soul, but this is what he heard: "You invented that we have a body. I found out that I have a body." For this people, the difference was this idea of body you were discussing here. A body that assumes a certain kind of practice of humanity. I'd like to resume from this point, but let's bring some other ideas too. Hearing you, I'll

try somewhat to follow your line of thought seemed to do, if I got it right. Well, Ailton said that we're getting closer to how things were in the past, the scene with the boys playing, getting closer to what's ancient. Marisol said that we have inherited, but not in a complete manner, we have inherited a world incompletely. There's always something that's together, but somehow, unsuspectingly, it is different. Later, Marisol said: "I need to think together with others, I learned to think accompanied, in a hybrid way." Ailton brought the idea of affective alliances, the notion of being

amongst companions. I don't know if I'm getting things right, but my provocation points to this direction, it is very appropriate resuming the notion of confluence, also mentioned by Nêgo Bispo, which is the way rivers work, we're here trying to understand and talking at the Seres-Rios Festival. It seems to me that the idea of being together, somehow, the world isn't yours only, "<i>remundear</i>"is task for all of us, but being together with a singularity or formulas that are not usual to us. You could understand that from your speeches. When Ailton discussed the idea of <i>polis</i>, the idea

of politics as a way of being together, this is what I could understand, and mixed with what I've already heard from you, creating a community isn't exactly the same as having something in common. But we must create communities. There's no way to ignore the existence of so many others, how important it's to be together. But, how can we be together in ways, as you seem to insist, which are out of suspicion? Children, resuming this coexistence with the ancient past but looking at the future. Marisol said something very interesting, you found a sentence by Isabelle Stengers,

but learned how to use it with Mariano Turpo. Look at this way of being together! Creating communities where one needs the other, I found it fantastic! These are the provocations and I leave you with the floor again so that we can have the final part of our conversation. I'll say something very short, and then let Ailton speak, and later I can come back or not. I find myself at a moment that, when I think that I really need to invent words, or use words that I hadn't used. The word "difference", for example, seems completely insufficient

to me. Because "different" is something that can be compared, and to compare, you must make things equal. Therefore, "difference" isn't enough for me... anymore. This also has to do with... a word that I will appropriate, given by Ailton just now that is the verb form of "confluence" instead of "converge". The verb form of "confluence" in divergence. Not in difference, but in divergence. Diverge in confluence, confluence in divergence. What Ana said... Stengers and Mariano reached a confluence in divergence. They made me think with the divergence. It's from there that I take the idea of the non-common.

The non-common that allows these alliances that we can call "confluences". But I also believe that it's necessary to call them alliances due to my obsession that I have of "<i>remundear</i>" the practices that are called "politics", because... it's there that we, at least I, want to insert, I believe this is one the major problems I have, I think this is problem more related to Peru than Brazil, Bolivia or Equador. The impermeability of politics to being "<i>remundeada</i>". This is a problem I feel is very strongly since my practice as an activist of thought in Peru. I don't

feel this impermeability when I talk with Ailton or people in Bolivia, people in Equador, or in Argentina. But I feel that in Peru, so "alliance" is a word I need, and I need it also... the word "politics", but replenished with a different practice. What I also believe to be necessary is offering... continentalisms. Offering "defronterization" to think about these alliances. Maybe, this way we can... "ecologize" the... political practices, in order to turn them into alliances through common interests that are not the same interest. Anyway, in other words, divergence instead of difference. Also the need for other

vocabularies. Other grammars and other vocabularies, and therefore, other practices of being... in a country. Maybe recovering to the concept of country... another blasphemy... but not so intense, recovering to the concept of country the idea of "non-nation". Talking about the country, as the place one is at. This is not an experience limited to a place, to a context of land. It is an experience that resorts to different moments in history of Latin America and it may coincide at some moments with what currently happens in Brazil. A kind of "de-identization", since we're free to create words, we're

going through a surprising process of... identitary denial here in Brazil, where the very symbols that colonialism instituted as identity symbols of country and nation, for example, the flag. The flag, which in any small republic means a solid part of identity, here in Brazil it was appropriated by a group of authoritarian people, fascists, who are preventing others, who share the same, let's call it nationality, from carrying this flag. Our flag was privatized. So, there's a capitalist scandal here, the privatization of homeland symbols. And to implode once and for all the poetic meaning of "my homeland is

my language", there is poem that says: "My homeland is my language.", here, both the meanings of homeland and language were scandalized, and a sort of club was instituted, a club that has a special zeal for guns, authoritarianism, chauvinism, and a series of fundamentalisms, a sort of tropical Taliban, who wants to prohibit other Brazilians to reclaim the flag to everyone. So, here you can see that this not a particularity, this difficulty... of "<i>mundizar</i>". This possibility of conjugating this verb that expresses the power of other worlds, opening to worldviews, able to imagine pluriverses. As said by our

thinkers, Andean thinkers, Alberto Acosta brings the idea of pluriverse, along with other thinkers from Equador, Colombia, Bolivia, Argentina, who touch on the subject of pluriverse, just like the evocation of "<i>mundizar</i>" the possibility of worlds affecting each other. I can only imagine the conjugation of this meaning when all the worlds can affect one another. I want to thank dear Ana, for bringing the quote of... confluences as an expression worked in an artisanal manner, locally, identified by a man from the <i>quilombos</i> who is our dear Nêgo Bispo, a thinker at the margins of this colonial universe, a

peaceful critic, a critic who is always in a good mood in regards to the political trends, to escape from the idea of political convergence, political convergence was a theme in the past 40, 50 years in South America, the idea that Peronism could join forces with another modern political trend in Argentina, the idea that in Brazil we could join a kind of workers' movement with socialism and capitalism, and produce these experiences of political management of the country in a neo-liberal way, in a way that is submitted to colonialism. Nêgo Bispo has escaped from this grammar by

saying that he's interested in confluences, and not convergences. At the same time, he can be critical and articulate the convergence, confluence and also the divergences. He's not denying the political, historical events. He's not someone who wants to escape the historicity, the historical meaning of things. He said: "Okay, history is there. History and its movements are there. But we shouldn't submit ourselves to the same logic. We can escape that." Nêgo Bispo tries to drive a perspective where confluences cannot encompass everything. However, they open up to new worlds. This opening to other worlds is a possibility of

denying oneself being another sheep in the flock, in tune with the colonial narrative, as if it were the last chance of conciliation. "Well, for purposes of conciliation, let's all pretend there was no genocide." Look, we know that the American genocide is a scandalous truth. How can we then conciliate a history of nation, of homeland among this continental graveyard? There must be an insurrection, the confluences can help us in this insurrection. We must mention an important debate currently happening in Latin America, which is the plurinationalism. It's the new Latin American constitutionalism that poses the question, in

Chile, for example, there's a Mapuche woman guiding the debate of the new plurinational Chilean constitution. Who could imagine that Chile could reach this wonderful spot for discussing its identity in the 21st century? Chile, historically, was authoritarian and refractory to any globalization. Chile has always been, and that's why Pinochet felt so at ease, for so long, such a cruel dictatorship. So, in Latin America, we have true authoritarian reservoirs, and a good way of reaching a confluence of these worlds is questioning the colonial truth that here we have "my homeland, my language". We have a Brazilian poet,

a wonderful singer, Caetano Veloso, he has a song where he praises the homeland. My homeland, my language. But, at the same time, he questions it. So, since Quechua is a continental language, long live Pachamama! Down with nationalisms! Down with nationalisms! I believe that it's timely, because we're currently talking in the week when a Mapuche woman was inaugurated as the President of the Constituent Assembly in Chile, to think... this assembly, this Constituent Assembly is an example of practices that are in the <i>polis</i>, but not only there. Because the presences of women... of transsexuals, scientists who think

of colonialism and science, and the presence of indigenous persons at the Assembly, are part of the culture, but not only that. They are part of the <i>polis</i>, but not only that. In this sense, there's an opening, and at this Assembly we could think or we could see it as a confluence of divergences. As an Assembly of divergences. I wanted to think for a moment in the election process currently happening in Peru, Where there is an extremely interesting phenomenon, where... the power is being disputed by those who've always had it, and those who've never had it.

The teacher who won the elections, he's the expression of those who never had any power. This causes terror to elites, the notion of power passing to other social groups. If that happens, it can be reconfigured. Its practice can be reconfigured. My dream is... thinking about Pedro Castillo, with the help of Pierre Clastres, on one hand, "the powerless bosses", on the other hand, the Zapatistas: "giving orders by obeying". In this sense, Pedro Castillo can give orders while he obeys, or he would have to give orders by obeying, changing the representation and not representing unless the people

represented are consulted so that he can represent them. I'm hopeful because one of the brilliant lawyers who are defending against the entire strength of the media establishment, and economic establishment, which are targeting Pedro Castillo, he said, one week ago: "Castillo's power isn't in the party that he supposedly represents but his power lies in all the people who voted for him." I believe that if we become aware, not only Pedro Castillo, but all people who think with this process, we could try to have a different practice of what we'd continue to call politics, but with this

practice would give it a different name. Maybe, it could be simply called 'democracy'. It could be a practice where there's no representative if there are no people being represented. The representative cannot cut ties with those he owes his power to. This is something I also learned with Mariano Turpo. He was representative of this community both to the State and the left-wing, but he taught me that he spoke 'from' and not 'by' the community. He spoke 'from' the community. He couldn't speak on behalf of the community, he'd to go back and consult with others. This is

also the practice of the "<i>rondas campesinas</i>". This is why Pedro Castillo is a "<i>rondero</i>", and this is why I feel that there's a possibility, if everyone, ecologically related, can practice... a thought that allows something that could be called 'ecologically democratic'. We are changing, the world must be changed, so let it be it through the limited experiences of democracy. I remember that I've always observed the idea of politics and the appeal of democracy as a vocalization of the world that looks for bodies to imprint meanings on. The meanings that we mentioned before and that characterized the

colonization of continents and new worlds. So, it means: we're not the ones who are inaugurating the desire of "<i>mundizar</i>" or "<i>remundizar</i>" or thinking of worlds in a constant transformation. In the Middle Ages, the desire of colonizing the planet somehow was mobilized by a will of a world. It seems that this will of a world has always been present in us. The introduction of a Western logic of a Western reason, and a instituted political power that migrates from body to body, yet, making the same mistakes, it is very interesting, because it relates to the idea of

culture and nature. When the catholic kings and the Pope back at the 15th century or so, after putting an end to the very last sultanate, in the Iberian Peninsula, they said: "We're now free to look for new bodies to be colonized by us." They had already done that with Africa, and came down to America to do the same. The dialogue attempts that happened throughout history, 17th, 18th century, they are very rich in showing how these persons who were trying to talk, each talked from a place that was completely impossible to be recognized by the other.

The letter of the Big Chief, the conversation attributed to Chief Seattle, and an armed representative of the Washington's Government, who said: "We came here to say that we'll occupy your land. So we want to have a deal, we want to buy this land." The letter says that Chief Seattle said: "How come? Does the white man wants to buy the land? The land is more than you and I, when you die, you'll be buried here." A military general listening to a native telling him these words took it as a severe offense. "How can this man tell

me that I'm scandalizing with this idea of purchasing the land, when we've always taken land, and when necessary, we buy it. Usually, we take it. I'm being so polite to the point of saying that we'll buy it. Since he doesn't want to sell, we'll kill them all and take the land." Because this is the colonial thinking. When Chief Seattle says: "I know... you got here and became the lord of everything. Probably, your god has constituted you as the new owner. You'll be the master of all these things. However, teach you children to tread this land

lightly, teach them to love this breeze from the mountain, to recognize the eagle's flight." He, Chief Seattle, tells a wonderful poem to that military man, and says: "If you don't learn that, you'll one day wake up drowned in your own vomit." So, this is what the colonial thinking is achieving. It is managing to accumulate so much trash, so much damage, so much anthropocentric discourse, that it's producing it's own anthropocene, it's creating a world that is ill. The rivers that made us meet each other today, the river beings, they are being mutilated. We evoked three rivers

at the beginning of our meeting. Each one of them has its body affected by some damage. Be it mining activities that dumps poison into the river's body, or the appropriation of landscape, that cuts the river in small parts, creating that landscape full of cows. The landscape of cattle, the landscape of grazing lands. There's no thing more repulsing than turning the body of a river into a place for cattle. Devastating, fouling and impacting everything. Because after 50 years of cattle stepping... on the soil and at the river margin, the river sinks and goes somewhere else. The

river goes through a confluence to different landscapes. When the landscape becomes unbearable, the river migrates. Here, Watú, our river, we sing to him. [<i>singing in native language</i>] We talk to our grandfather, we talk to him, how we enjoy talking to him, and thanking him for giving us food and this wonderful water, he expands our world views, our grandfather, Watú, the river. His body is all full of mercury and a huge list of poisons that mining activities dumped in his body. His body, tired, dived into himself. That material goes down the chute isn't the river's body.

These are the debris, this is what Chief Seattle called 'vomit'. It goes down the chute. The real water, that springs up in the mountains, it is now running under a slab of rock, that the geologists say that is a formation of granite and other very solid materials, forming a base that goes down to the coast and reaches the Atlantic. On top of this platform, there is soil. There are layers of soil. The river dived down and he runs underneath the slab. He probably reaches the Atlantic Ocean. But he doesn't want to expose himself to this

constant abuse of such an absurd reason that thinks that there are bodies to be occupied, like zombies. He is a body who refuses to be bullied. In face of offense, he dives down and disappears. Then, the humans will complain that they're running short of water. Humans and their stupid economies will complain that they no longer can promote development and progress, because they need a lot of water. Water to power plants, industries... Humans are always complaining. These humans... they're hopeless! That's right, Ailton, you said that beings that are not <i>polis</i>, can have alliances beyond politics. So,

let's find these other alliances! Now, you said something important: when all the worlds can be affected. We're all here, the world doesn't belong to any one of us. We're all here. The task of "<i>remundear</i>" belongs to all. I don't know, do you agree in reaching a conclusion? Celebrating these two happenings, the presence of Elisa Loncón, the president of the Constituent Assembly of Chile, and Pedro Castillo, opening this new horizon in politics, and, as Marisol said: "Inheriting the politics, but to do something different and new." Maybe these are good omens at the present moment. I'd like

to invite you to make a final and conclusive comment, so that we can wrap this brilliant session. What would you like to say, thinking about a conclusion? Marisol? I believe that the idea is something I've said before. In order to inherit politics differently, we must not occupy it, but we must be inside it and escape from it. I believe that we shouldn't occupy the politics. Because when we occupy it, the politics occupy us. We should not let the politics occupy us. So, we have to go through the politics, without letting it occupy us, escaping from

it. This Constituent Assembly and this, hopefully, presidency of Pedro Castillo, should not be occupied by the State, they must not occupy the State. They must be in the State, and escape from the State, and they must do that constantly. Being and escaping, confluence, flowing, pass through and escape, pass through and escape. And they must do that in divergence, in conversation in divergence. They should not stop the conversation, but they must not become an unity. The unity... we must make worlds without unities. Make fractal worlds, without unities, make fractions, without unities. Fractions that can get together,

flow together and follow in confluence, being different. To talk again about the Assembly, they must not let the State occupy it, or not let the State take the leadership positions, the leadership positions in this Assembly that don't want to be usual representations. The same applies to the future presidency of Pedro Castillo: it must not let it be occupied by the State. It has to escape the State, being inside it but escaping from it. Well, who knows? Maybe the presence of indigenous peoples, original peoples in the debate on the new constitutionalism in Latin America, but mainly

from the Andes, maybe it will bring other perspectives, including about what we call 'country' and 'nation'. Because these original peoples have other contributions to the debate, both at the <i>polis</i>, and of the very idea of nature, ecology and culture. If open up to all this richness, all this wonder, politics will become a mere dimension of life. It will not be an occupation of life. Because, definitely, the 20th century was very much permeated with the idea of occupation, Either by the far-right or far-left, or this thing that's called liberalism, the only thing they did was to

prepare these bodies that aren't able to defend themselves and constitute this servitude. Escaping from this servitude is also to question the idea of occupying. Occupying the politics or the State, I hope that we can help to bring new air into these places, just like our rivers donate, share and flow together, let's learn from our rivers, and never be restrained by any dam. The idea of these national states is very limited. It is very poor, we should be able to leave that behind and flow together. I have expectations that are very good in regards to what

can happen mainly in South America, without forgetting, obviously, our dear Zapatistas, they've always inspired debates in Latin America, but considering that there's an Andean challenge ahead. Before we yell: "Long live, Zapata!" we'll have to yell: "Abre ayala!", right? As our brothers say in Quechua language, when they salute the earth and the skies, right? Marisol and Ailton, dear friends, thank you very much for this wonderful meeting and reflections, learning with the rivers, being together, experiencing the learning. I think this was a joyful moment that will have its repercussions. I thank you greatly on behalf of the

festival, and... we celebrate, there are things... we celebrate Elisa Loncón, Pedro Castillo, and what is to come. Thank you, Ana! Thank you! Thank you, Marisol, wonderful! Thank you, Ailton, thank you, everyone!